Consortium mtg minutes by Joyce Bender
February 2009

Ginny Short's research showing the poor correlation between the HCPs in Western Riverside County and the location of good BuOw habitat was pretty disheartening. Grassland areas didn't correlate with historic or current BuOw locations but that's what the conservation plans are using. 81% of historic BuOw territories will be lost if only HCP plan areas are saved. (That's the gist anyway.) I was surprised to learn than BuOws were most successful around rock outcroppings and also had a positive correlation with precipitation, slope, and distance to drainage; not grasslands.

Christiana Manville's work with volunteers in the Las Vegas area was just the opposite (very encouraging). Talk about going the extra mile to make sure the owls don't get ignored out of existence... reminds me of you!! There should be information on her study and a new visual aging guide for chicks on this website but I can't find it. Red Rock Audubon Society - Burrowing Owl Project

The Arizona G & F study (following up on the Wild at Heart translocations) presented by Michael Ingraldi was also interesting. The most successful colonies were on light industrial properties. Colonies smaller than 30 acres didn't persist. I'd like to find out just what the acreage included (foraging habitat?). Urban parks in areas with fewer ORV's and guns might fare better than those studied in Arizona. Burrowing Owl Resources  has some stuff that might interest you.

Jack Barclay gave two talks. His research at San Jose International Airport showed no correlation between owl population levels and owl strikes. He feels his data show that BuOws can very successfully coexist with aircraft if people place the nesting boxes correctly. The point I took from his other talk was that low adult survival rate was the most important cause of colony decline. I don't remember exactly where he draws the line between juveniles and adults.

Brenda Johnson presented an overview of using conservation plans as a tool for BuOw conservation. After Ginny Short's talk, I wonder how effective the conservation plans are going to be. Sounds like the owls can get lost in the crowd when there's such an emphasis on having as many covered species as possible. Intentions are good, but I'm afraid that the owls may just slip away while people are buried in meetings and no one is making sure that the owls have suitable habitat (since just putting a fence around it won't do the trick.) Eliminating grazing may be a fatal mistake as maintenance via mowing to keep vegetation short is something that can easily slip though the widening cracks in budgets or be ineffective because of poor timing. 

Jeff Lincer's wrap-up emphasized having a more comprehensive planning instrument (CBOMP) that includes all relevant options including captive breeding and other active management. I asked if Cal fish & game has a policy on supplementary feeding in populations already habituated to people. Esther Burkett said that the only policy is that the birds can't be "harassed." Supplementary feeding is a proven, relatively simple way to increase the number of chicks fledged. I think it's definitely worth trying for a month or so after hatching.

Other presentations don't stick in my mind as bringing new information. Bill Wilkerson wasn't there; but sent an update sheet. They haven't gotten funding to finish their analysis but have provided Bill Boarman and others in conservation planning with the data. They hope to have a full report out by this fall. Bill Boarman gave pretty much the same talk as a year ago. Appropriate, I suppose, since it was mostly a different audience. He seems genuinely open to input.

I can scan the final agenda & IBP summary and send them to you if you'd like. The state conservation plan is scheduled to be ready by the September meeting. Hope to see you long before then!

Owlishly,

Joyc